Letters to the Editor
-
Obama. Here's why.
The GOP is campaigning for the center and center-right. Hence, McCain. They have given up on the ultra-right.
Obama will be very easily portrayed as ultra-left. Voting record + supporters (moveon.org, Farrakhan, et al).
Clinton is campaigning for center and center-left.
The center voter has always delivered the Presidency in a general. Hence, Clinton and McCain will be fighting for the center. The center doesn't believe in the ultra-right "culture war" arguments anymore -- but they still believe that the country has "enemies". The center may be sympathetic to Obama's claim that he has good "instincts" with regards to the country's security, but they will go for a "tested and proven" candidate on that point. That is why Clinton has been voting with the Republicans on certain issues the "ultra-left" now hate her for. She has been strengthening her "centrist" credentials.
If the Democrats want to win this election, they need to nominate a centrist candidate. Even if that means the ultra-left stay home and don't vote.
-
TO TALIESAN
They is playing to win and there is going over the top to discredit your competition. Hillary Clinton will have to be dragged kicking and screaming to get out of this race if in fact she comes up short on delegates, and popular vote. She is a dishonest person who would ruin the presidency even more than Bush if she were to ever get back to the WH
Remember FILEGATE, WHITE WATER, TRAVEL GATE, HIRING PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS TO DISCREDIT THE WOMEN BLL CLINTON ABUSED AND IN THE CASE OF JUANITA BRODDERICK, RAPED, ENEMIES LIST, PAYING OFF THE MACDOUGALS,GETTIN TAX RETURNS ON THOSE WHO WERE NOT LOYAL TO THEM AND THE LIST GOES ON AND ON AND ON AND ON.....
-
@ NYShooter
1) Obama's got a longer legislative record and history than Clinton by about 4 years given his time in the State Senate and the US senate. Go to http://thomas.loc.gov/ and look at his proposals.
Better still, look at these DKos diaries on the subject. This is of course if you're interested in the truth as opposed to talking points.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/20/201332/807
and
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/21/164117/783
There goes your "he's inexperienced" argument.
2) He bought a $1.6m home after receiving $1+ million dollar advance for his book.
3) Papers like the Chicago Sun-Times have been investigating Obama for years with regard to Rezko and to this day admit that there is nothing to implicate him of any wrongdoing.
4) Hillary Clinton began running for President the moment she graduated from college by the accounts of her closest friends and advisors. Your point?
------------------
Should I continue?
-
@ red_gti2000
I disagree with your assertion.
Reagan: Right-wing and 2x winner
Bush II: Right-wing and 2x winner
Bush I: Center-right and split
Nixon: Right-wing (for his era) and 2x winner.
Carter: Progressive and split
Mondale: Center-left loser
Dukakis: Center-left loser
Clinton: Ran as progressive in '92 (governed otherwise and then ran as progressive again in '96) 2x winner
Gore: Center-left loser
Kerry: Center-left loser
And McCain, by the way, is a raging winger. That he is all over the map on a couple of issues doesn't make him centrist (though I'll agree that's the perception, which is what matters in politics).
-
hunthorse
If by "Chicago hack" you mean he was a lawfully elected state senator in an American state, and then went on to become a senator for that state on a federal level then yes he was.
Of course, his record at the time included things like much needed ethics reforms, leading the charge on taped confessions, and co-sponsoring tax credits for low income workers. Real bad guy this Obama.
As to his wife not being what one would term a uber patriot, I view that in her favour. After all, the manic flag humpers have not exactly done America much good. About all they have achieved is turning the flag into their collective cum rag.
That said, this election is not for Obama's wife, no matter how much I might like her. Fortunately, Obama has demonstrated the same instinct for not playing up to patriotic rah-rah lines.
-
@Reality-based Liberal
Exactly. Perception is what matters in politics. And what I have described is what the general public perceives.
-
Nancianne
Obama is no less fervant in wanting to win.
The difference is that he has hit upon the more effective campaign strategy - right down to learning from history and not ignoring the smaller states.
That he isn't as obvious in his slams of Hillary is not a signature of him being less of a fighter, it is just a sign that he is better at it.
-
@ red_gti2000
So don't you think it behooves reality-based activists to change perceptions so that they more closely match the world in which we live?
-
NYShooter
Your claims of Obama's inexperience conflict with your side's criticising him for having attained elected office in Chicago.
Basically, stop lying. It is transparent, and it doesn't do your candidate any favours.
-
More important questions.
If HRC has so much experience at winning elections while enduring smear campaigns, why is she losing to an inexperienced greenhorn who hasn't even attempted to smear her?
If HRC is ready to handle the biggest economy on the planet, why did she have to loan her own campaign five million dollars to keep it from going bankrupt?
Is there any conceivable way for HRC to become the nominee without the powers-that-be usurping the democratic process and denying the will of the voters?
Is the women's movement so shameless that they would rather have the nomination handed to them by a group of powerful white men instead of earning it on their own?
-
@Reality
Hmmm. That's a tough one.
How do you convince someone else that their thinking is incorrect? In my letter history you'll find a post regarding how people nowadays just "talk past" each other instead of engaging in honest debate.
I think that, with all the static and noise coming from all directions nowadays people just tend to go with their instincts (and biases), basically because they will always be able to find some argument (on the internet or somewhere else) that gives support to their own belief system. In short, trying to change another person's "perception of reality" for an election is almost doomed to fail.
OTOH, people change their "perceptions of reality" pretty quickly when cold, hard facts hit them on the head. Witness the current debacle in housing. From "houses will always appreciate in value" to "OMG, let's walk from this mortgage. It'll never come back."
So, for the purposes of winning an election I would go with playing into people's biases to win it, then maybe trying to change it from a position of strength.
Otherwise, the GOP will win again and _they_ will be in the position of trying to change people's "perception of reality" to their ends.